However since then a new councillor has taken over, Rodney Bass, and he has rejected the crossing on the grounds that there isn’t a pavement on both sides of the road.

But we also get the feeling that the officers advising him in County Hall in Chelmsford, who hadn’t been to the local highways panel that discussed this, didn’t have a clue as to what activities happen at Lubards Farm or why people wanted a crossing.

We are not giving up. We are starting another petition and will battle once more to get a crossing – it will be discussed at the next Local Highways Panel on January 14th.Any help with the petition will be gratefully received.

71 Responses to “Time To Fight Again For A Crossing – Please Sign Our Petition”

1

bruce smart:
December 9th, 2013 at 05:12

The reason the crossing is needed is because there is only one pavement on the wrong side of the road to access the facilities on foot. Have the decision makers ever visited the site?
Petition is now in the Post Office and by Tuesday will be at sites on the farm.

2

Jim Cripps:
December 10th, 2013 at 08:12

Actually that is another point against Michelin Farm proposal – absolutely no pedestrian access what so ever , and frankly not a lot of scope for any either.
I’ll sign your petition , my daughter brought this up when her kids attended the
Nursery there some years ago.

3

Hannah aged 8:
December 10th, 2013 at 07:12

“I don’t think that they should do this because a lot of people walk there and really young people like toddlers cross there and I just don’t want anyone to get run over.”

4

Amber Dawn aged 6:
December 10th, 2013 at 08:12

“I think no because lots of people come to Mushroom and Swimming Tales. So I don’t want them to get run over.”

5

Jane Lydford:
December 10th, 2013 at 09:12

It’s really sad re-reading the previous thread announcing the success of having passed:

“We’ve heard today that the County Council has given the go-ahead for a pedestrian crossing in Hullbridge Road at Lubards Farm!

This is something we’ve been campaigning for. Approval has been given and finance has been allocated. However it still has to be designed. So don’t expect anything to arrive soon.

This wasn’t an easy thing to achieve (and we won’t open the champagne until it’s actually installed). It didn’t meet normal criteria and we had to get the panel to make this their main spending item for last year. Incidentally this comes from a budget completely separate from highways maintenance.

But it proves that Local Highways Panels can work. It also shows that whatever political party you belong to , if you make a good effort as a ward councillor, you get listened to in Rochford.”

We need the crossing. It is a dangerous road. Cars speed up after passing the mini roundabout. Lubbards has lots of small businesses there used by a range of different people including those that don’t travel by car.

Some of these businesses / community groups are specifically for families including:

Mushroom Theatre Company that is fully inclusive with children and adults with physical, able bodied and those with learning difficulties.
Happy Day’s children’s Nursery,
Swimming Tales,
Clay Cottage,
Fungi Fitness – gym,
There is a horse stables.

I’m not able to list all the different things there but it is a centre which is used by a wide range of people, including very young children, people that need to use wheelchairs and people with learning difficulties.

It is a very dangerous road to cross and the crossing which was voted upon, agreed, passed and funding allocated could make it a safe road to cross and ultimately save a person’s life. To go through all the meetings, getting it all passed must be so frustrating for all the council members from different parties that voted for it. It makes a farce of the system.

As a parent of children that go to Lubbards 6 days a week (Mushroom & Swimming Tales) and also Clay Cottage in the school holidays, I am worried that the only way that we will get a crossing will be after a vehicle hits a person running across the road, trying to dodge between speeding cars.

If the decision had been made and funding allocated – then we should have the crossing, it could save a life or lives.

6

colin seagers:
December 11th, 2013 at 10:12

As I previously advised Cllr Chris Black immediately after EC Highways first informed me, the reason given for the cancellation of the crossing was that it had been turned down on technical policy grounds by EC Highways officers, not by the decision of Cllr Rodney Bass. During my consultation with him shortly after that, during the very first of his new surgeries for County Councillors in the new opened Highways centre at County Hall, Cllr Bass indicated that he is open to alternative suggestions for alleviating some of the Lubbards Farm access problems, possibly funded by part of those originally allocated for the crossing scheme. However, it is extremely unlikely that the Rochford LHP budget could meet the additional costs of sufficient changes required later to permit the installation of the crossing e.g. construction of lengthy additional and wider footways requiring land acquisition and drainage works etc.

Back in July we were advised by County Highways :
Having explained that the funding for the scheme was allocated last year and subsequently signed off by the former Cabinet Member Cllr Louis, I am pleased to announce that the decision was taken that this crossing can proceed.

I will contact the Design Team to ask them to continue with the design and programming of this scheme. Indicative start dates will be provided at the next panel in October.

The scheme was approved by the local highways panel and by the then Cabinet member. We don’t need extra footway , because if you had a footway all the way to the junction with Rawreth Lane that would simply cause another hazard. A crossing is a much better answer and is what people have asked for.

8

Jim Cripps:
December 11th, 2013 at 05:12

Another case of “it does’nt matter what people want” then – as per usual……

9

Jane Lydford:
December 11th, 2013 at 07:12

e.g. construction of lengthy additional and wider footways

Colin do you mean all the way to Rawreth Lane?

10

Jane Lydford:
December 12th, 2013 at 11:12

Please don’t anyone turn this into some political row – people want the crossing to make the road safer to cross. There was money allocated. It was agreed from different political parties: – so it shouldn’t end up a who said what scenario.
After all it doesn’t matter which political party an individual driver or pedestrian (or their families) votes for, if there is an accident and someone gets hurt or killed – then it is an avoidable accident.

People run across the road there, including people with pushchairs with walking siblings and the cars speed up.

If the crossing is now being stopped, what other short term (while this mess is sorted out) measures can be put it place to make it a safer place to cross?

A drop in the speed zone? Including clearly shown speed signs? Measures to enforce this?
Signs warning that people cross here, like they have near schools or the elderly walker signs?
Speed bumps?

The best solution for drivers and pedestrians is a clear crossing. Zebra / Pelican whatever. Just please, those people responsible for making and implementing the safety of the people that voted for them – Please find away to make crossing that road Safe.

Please before someone gets hurt or killed.

11

The Mighty Oz:
December 12th, 2013 at 12:12

Jane – well said, a voice of sanity at last.

12

C. Turner:
December 12th, 2013 at 03:12

This is a dangerous road. In winter it is also very dark along there and such a lot of fast traffic. There are quite a few childrens clubs eg mushroom theatre, swimming tales, clay cottage, julie noble, cookywooky workshop etc and gyms etc. It is so difficult crossing especially with more than one child as you need to cross to and from the bus stops. It is in desperate need of a zebra crossing before there is a nasty accident.

13

bruce smart:
December 12th, 2013 at 05:12

This has been going on for years now. If anyone is considering being a Town Councillor this is evidence of the effort you put in for no reward. The crossing needs to put in place. I have asked for the ditch on Hullbridge Road to be cleared and the drains unblocked. Date 11/12/13. Bets are now being taken on when the work will be done. Accept it is holiday season etc so would expect Feb. at the earliest. So keep watch and see how long it takes.

14

colin seagers:
December 12th, 2013 at 08:12

Admin
You fail to recognise that even when an LHP approves a proposal and then it is approved by the ECC Cabinet Member, a scheme may still be shot down by EC Highways officers on the grounds of it not meeting technical, legal or safety policy grounds if these arise or are discovered by officers as their final plans for implementation are completed. It is my understanding that was what happened.
An alternative to a crossing could have been a continuation and widening of the footway, but it is far beyond our LHP budget for the reasons I stated previously. I believe that new crossings of any kind require a greater width of footway or lesser speed limit than of those which currently exist. A possible solution may be the implementation of a speed limit, although even those appear to face significant technical/safety hurdles on occasion as I understand it. Pardon my ignorance regarding a road that I hardly ever have call to use, but perhaps you can confirm whether it is currently 40 mph restricted or de-restricted there? However, as the Rochford LHP Chairman, I would be supportive of some further investigation of the speed limit option by EC Highways, subject to a majority of other LHP Members agreement and EC Highways favourable advice, if it would potentially resolve the safety concerns regarding a sufficient number of existing users of the Lubbards Farm site.
Jane
I do not consider that such Highways issues have any political party bias, just as planning matters do not. Individual Members may on balance come to differing conclusions occasionally on the basis of the same facts, but this is not a political issue here. I’m certain that LHP Members still do have the best overall interests of all the RDC residents at heart, irrespective of their party allegiances and not solely of their particular District Ward or County Division.

15

Chris Black:
December 12th, 2013 at 09:12

Colin:
So what was discovered “as their final plans for implementation are completed”???? Everyone knew there wasn’t a footway on one side of the road – that was hardly a secret…!

Jane – I believe the Echo did a photocall today after seeing this item on onlineFOCUS.

16

colin seagers:
December 13th, 2013 at 01:12

Chris Black
I repeat, I was informed that the decision to cancel implementation of the crossing was taken by EC Highways officers on policy grounds that I have already mentioned, and was NOT made by the current ECC Cabinet Member Rodney Bass as was incorrectly stated in your opening post.
I will request that EC officers supply you with a full explanation of their reasons, but it does you no credit to make such facile comment as in post #15.

17

Greenbelt:
December 13th, 2013 at 07:12

Cllr. Seagers at 14.
Are you admitting that as the Rochford LHP Chairman you approved this proposal without even making a site visit? Surely you would have observed the speed limit if you had.

18

Jim Cripps:
December 13th, 2013 at 09:12

We badly need a “can do” culture change in local government ASAP……..and I am being serious here, there is clearly a need and if there is no “party political” aspect
Then get round the table and resolve the issue.

19

The Mighty Oz:
December 13th, 2013 at 02:12

Let’s agree one accident is one accident too many but one question, everyone seems in violent agreement about the perceived danger but do any accident stats back up that theory ?

20

colin seagers:
December 13th, 2013 at 04:12

Greenbelt
You are totally incorrect re your post #17.
I was elected to ECC for Rochford South Division only in the May 2013 election and although a District Member for Foulness & Great Wakering Ward since 2002, I was not previously a member of the Rochford Local Highways Panel. The various Essex LHP’s are normally chaired by a ECC Member and I was elected Chairman of the Rochford LHP at its first meeting subsequently. The scheme was approved by the previous Members of the Panel in 2012/13. I have had no involvement other than doing my best since July to communicate the facts as reported to me and explore for some possible alternative solution if a crossing is not permitted. LHP Chairmanship appears to be the proverbial poisoned chalice, which will doubtless cause future candidates for LHP Chairman to consider rejecting the position judging by the unjustified brickbats I have received to date and that were also suffered by my predecessor.

Mighty Oz re your post #19
I believe it is likely that a safety camera would have been installed were there a history of accidents at Lubbards Farm, or anywhere else for that matter, that met technical installation requirements, so the answer is probably not. However, if the hair-raising descriptions of people attempting to cross there are correct, then there does seem a distinct possibility of one occurring.

21

The Mighty Oz:
December 14th, 2013 at 12:12

I take my hat off to Colin for posting on this site. He seems to be continually shot at by a few contributors. I think the very least people can do, if proved incorrect, is to apologise. Come on chaps, do the right thing.

22

Greenbelt:
December 14th, 2013 at 01:12

Cllr. Seagers,
To me it was not clear in your post (14) that you had only recently taken up the post. This is perhaps the problem, we do not get to know Councillors or what their responsibilities are. This is why I favour a return of the Area Committees although in your case we would still not get to meet you. I have visited your portfolio on the RDC website and as you are only listed as being on The Full Council, the Development Committee and the Review Committee, the public cannot be expected to know that you are also on the Rochford LHP or indeed have Chairmanship of it.

Will you now retract, correct and apologise or as usual simply stay silent after having mislead everyone?

24

Chris Black:
December 14th, 2013 at 04:12

Colin, you have linked to a page with about 6 sets of minutes. What exactly are you referring to ?

25

Jane Lydford:
December 14th, 2013 at 05:12

erm, moving away from a row.

The speed limit is 40 mph but the majority of the signs are small and very dirty so not obvious.

There are sometimes flowers tied up and I have been told that a motorcyclist lost control of his bike and crashed. I have looked for a link to the facts online but I haven’t yet found them.

So my understanding is that a man on a motor bike was going to fast, crashed and died.

Personally I would rather be factually incorrect and if I am wrong then I will acknowledge it.

I don’t care who said what in the past. I just don’t want an accident to occur because a pedestrian tried to cross the road when they thought that they were safe to suddenly have to start running because a car is traveling 50+ miles an hour. Can’t be quoted because I don’t have a speed gun.

The girls and I have a saying, each time a car hurtles past:

Better to be late
Than to get squashed.

And sometimes we are very late just because we have waited 15-20 minutes trying to cross the road.

26

Chris Black:
December 14th, 2013 at 06:12

Jane, two boys at Park school were killed in a road accident, I think about 20 years ago. They were either pedestrians or cyclists. After this happened the speed limit was reduced from 5o to 40 mph. There is a memorial to them in Rawreth lane (where their school used to be) on the grass in front of the flats to the right of the junction with Priory Chase.

27

christine paine:
December 14th, 2013 at 06:12

Cllr. Seagers – would it be possible to put a small area of footpath at the actual crossing site. This has been done on the A129 at the traffic lights that allow both pedestrians and riders to cross the very fast road from the bridleway. There is no paved footpath either side of that road, but a small area of pavement has been put at the actual crossing site. I would think this would be cheaper than some of the alternatives and would allow people to have a hard surface to cross onto and from rather than a slippery and muddy grass verge.

28

colin seagers:
December 15th, 2013 at 05:12

Chris Black
If you care to view the latest 3 .pdf items you will discover in the July meeting notes that it was NOT Cllr Bass that rejected the crossing as wrongly stated in your very first post in this thread – “However since then a new councillor has taken over, Rodney Bass, and he has rejected the crossing on the grounds that there isn’t a pavement on both sides of the road.” It was rejected by Officers for the technical reasons they stated back in July, given that the ECC policies must follow DfT guidance.
I presume that the Echo blindly followed either your original post or further contact with them for what appeared in the Echo subsequently, also wrongly blaming Cllr Bass.
It is rather improbable that an exactly repeated request from the LHP, with or without the support of another petition, will result in any different outcome if nothing has changed to affect the DfT guidance.
The link usefully includes more items to inform others that had queried the sequence of events and when they occurred, including one querying what had been my previous involvement (none) with the Essex LHP for Rochford prior to my first meeting in July, and it may also be of future use to those interested in the LHP on an ongoing basis.

29

colin seagers:
December 15th, 2013 at 05:12

Christine Paine re post #27
It could be an interesting precedent to explore but it is my present supposition that if it were such a modest a change required to the design, it would have been easily incorporated into the scheme to allow it to meet the DfT guidance at the first time of asking. I will however raise the idea with our liaison officers before our next LHP meeting after inspecting the site on the A129.

30

colin seagers:
December 15th, 2013 at 06:12

Greenbelt
The Rochford LHP is in fact an ECC function. My involvement as a Member of the LHP is listed on the ECC website among my ‘Other Bodies’ activities but my Chairmanship of it currently does not yet appear to have been added by ECC Officers. I have enquired whether that is an oversight or its Chairmanship is perhaps not normally recorded.

31

Chris Black:
December 15th, 2013 at 09:12

People want to see a crossing, on not an endless argument of “he said, you said”. And Christine’s idea @ 27 seems a good one.

But to be quite clear – I do not think I have misled anyone. The meetings notes for July state that the crossing has been approved. Sometime after that someone has queried it and it has gone to Cllr Bass. I have it in writing, from a senior Conservative Councillor (would you like me to name him?) that:

“The crossing appears to have failed on both technical safety policy grounds and ‘PV2’ cost/benefit grounds, although Cllr Bass stated that he would have used his discretion to overlook the latter if it had failed on PV2 grounds alone, because the project had already been signed off by his predecessor Cllr Louis.
As I understand it the safety policy grounds revolve around the lack of footway continuation and insufficiency of the footway width required at crossing

Which is effectively what I wrote in the original post above.

Can we move on now and try to get this crossing. Nobody is blaming you for this Colin.

32

bruce smart:
December 15th, 2013 at 10:12

Seems we need a crossing because there is no pavement on the Lubbards side of Hullbridge Road. But we cannot have a footpath because there is no pavement. Catch 22

33

Greenbelt:
December 15th, 2013 at 11:12

Cllr. Seagers, I believe that an article in Rochford District Matters, explaining how all these committees at District and County level link together, would be be worthwhile subject. Perhaps then, there would be less confusion and greater understanding of the system by the public.

34

colin seagers:
December 15th, 2013 at 05:12

Chris Black re your post 31
Nor is it Cllr Rodney Bass’ fault, because he did NOT ‘decide against it’ as you have incorrectly claimed since your opening post and which the Echo have published. I repeat, it failed to satisfy DfT guidance on technical/safety grounds on reaching the Network System officers to implement, thus ruling out any discretion that he may have had were it solely failing on ‘PV2′ cost/benefit grounds.
I am very happy to confirm publicly that your quote in #31 is what I and County Officers advised you of months ago, and it completely contradicts your continued stance since opening this thread. Neither LHP approval nor ECC Cabinet Member ‘sign off’ overrules a failure to satisfy DfT guidance requirements.
Perhaps, mindful of the responsibilities of RDC Members for their social media publications such as this website, you will now be so kind as to retract your statement to the Echo and request it to publish a correction and apology to both Cllr Bass and his predecessor Cllr Louis.

35

bruce smart:
December 15th, 2013 at 09:12

Perhaps the answer is for the technical difficulties be looked into before any discussion takes place or decision made. It is frustrating to be told that something will happen and then the exact opposite shortly after.
Also frustrating that money can be found to move a bus stop that very few if any want moved and there cannot be a crossing which people do want. And I know the crossing is not about the finance.

36

Jane Lydford:
December 15th, 2013 at 09:12

There is a small pavement outside Lubbards Farm. It was built when then they put the bus stop in. It isn’t that big but it is there. Couldn’t this pavement be extended or similar pavement put on the left side of the mouth of the entrance / exit to Lubbards?

If there wasn’t a compulsory purchase of the land to build the bus stop path, then am I right in thinking the Council would not have to spend money making compulsory purchase of the land?

37

The Mighty Oz:
December 16th, 2013 at 03:12

Just a thought, is access to/from a business taken into consideration when obtaining planning permissions or licences ?

38

christine paine:
December 16th, 2013 at 06:12

Good point Oz. I’m sure Chris will know the definite answer, but I would guess only vehicle access to/from and total anticipated traffic movement is considered, not foot traffic.

39

Chris Black:
December 16th, 2013 at 08:12

Colin@34 If you look at the meeting notes attached for the July meeting, the crossing was discussed, and although the issues of footways and DfT guidance were mentioned at the meeting, the crossing was approved at later date after the meeting . It has since been cancelled . My argument stands.

40

Chris Black:
December 16th, 2013 at 08:12

Jane @25 – another councillor has contacted me to say that sadly you are right, a motorcyclist was indeed tragically killed on the bend by Watery Lane. He was dead before the emergency services could arrive.

Oz @37 – We definitely take into account vehicle access, in fact sometimes applications are refused if the access isn’t considered safe. Sometimes we impose a condition that vehicles must able to leave the site in forward gear.
With pedestrians,it isn’t an issue quite so much, although if County Highways recommended refusal on grounds of unsafe pedestrian access, it would very likely be refused.

41

colin seagers:
December 16th, 2013 at 10:12

Chris Black
I repeat yet again, your argument does NOT stand, the scheme was NOT cancelled by Cllr Bass but failed when Network Systems officers applied the DfT guidance, as stated in the penultimate line of your extract in your post #39. Will you please now correct your claims from the start of this thread and inform the Echo as previously requested.

42

Jim Cripps:
December 17th, 2013 at 01:12

Meanwhile Rome burns……..

43

The Mighty Oz:
December 17th, 2013 at 04:12

Chaps, how about a Christmas truce…….

44

Corey Vost:
December 17th, 2013 at 07:12

Why did the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport not read and apply the DfT guidance BEFORE the crossing was approved? For it was approved as clearly indicated on page 6 of the Notes of Meeting Held 12 July 2013 “Post meeting note: Following the meeting with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation, the further PV2 survey will no longer be necessary as the crossing has been approved.”

45

Corey Vost:
December 17th, 2013 at 07:12

I’d just like to add that one definition of cancel is “to annul or invalidate” – it’s obvious to me that the scheme was “annulled” or “invalidated” after apply the DfT guidance, so that’s the same as the scheme being cancelled then?

46

Chris Black:
December 17th, 2013 at 09:12

Oz @ 43, a Christmas truce sounds good to me…

47

Jim Cripps:
December 18th, 2013 at 09:12

OK , me too”…….merry Xmas one and all.

48

colin seagers:
December 18th, 2013 at 05:12

Corey Vost re posts #44 & #45
It is not the function of an ECC Cabinet Member to undertake the role of ECC technical officers, akin to a hospital administrator telling a brain surgeon where to make an incision during an operation. To repeat yet again, Cllr Bass did NOT decide against, cancel, annul, or any other word that you wish to contrive as a ridiculous excuse for Cllr Black’s wrongful accusation of Cllr Bass. Road Network Officers preparing to implement the designed scheme consulted the DfT Guidance and found the intended scheme did not comply, at which point it failed.
As you should have read previously, a further PV2 cost/benefit study was within Cllr Bass’ remit to dispense with, given his predecessor had approved the scheme to that point, but ignoring the DfT Guidance is NOT within his remit nor of officers.
Oz re post #43
What next, a one a side football match? In a larger match at Christmas 1914, history records they began killing one another again the following day, and didn’t stop for nearly four more years! Merry Christmas Oz.

49

Corey Vost:
December 18th, 2013 at 10:12

with all due respect Cllr Seagers, perhaps you would like to remember that you are speaking to the people who elect you to office. I asked a very simple question, yet got a rather offensive and patronising response.

50

Jim Cripps:
December 19th, 2013 at 09:12

Corey – that is exactly why ( common knowledge) the public at large are disenchanted with politicians nationwide – from EU through Westminster to District Councils. Just sit
And analyse that response and compare it with a Newsnight interview or Question Time response – it is an art form of smoke and mirror deflection from the base question. And on your last point it is Council election time in 2014 and General Election time in 2015 , as I’ve said before we need a ‘British Spring’ urgently.
PS: I feel able to post again as the Councillor rejected the Xmas truce suggested, as
You say give ‘em a badge and they……………….

51

Jane Lydford:
December 19th, 2013 at 11:12

erm, please could we get back to the topic. I don’t know about anyone else but I have encouraged my family and friends to read this thread to find out about the crossing. It is now one of the most read threads list, so potentially more people will come and read it. I hope that they are not put off reading the whole thread.

52

colin seagers:
December 19th, 2013 at 11:12

Corey Vost re post #49
No, I answered your question with the plain facts and am simply continuing to point out the offensive error which Cllr Black still refuses to correct, and which for some reason you choose to support him in perpetuating his libellous statement.
Jim Cripps re post #50
The ‘base question’ and offence is Cllr Black’s arrogant refusal to admit he was wrong from the very start of this thread in stating that Cllr Bass rejected the crossing scheme, the opposite was indeed the case, and the solution to correct it is both easy and in Cllr Black’s hands. My offence, according to your anarchic logic it seems, is of daring to tell you the truth rather than accept Cllr Black’s statement about a highly respected senior County Councillor.

53

Greenbelt:
December 19th, 2013 at 12:12

Corey, you are not the first and it’s likely you won’t be the last.

54

The Mighty Oz:
December 19th, 2013 at 12:12

Come on Chaps, let’s put this one aside until early Jan…..you can’t change anything over the Christmas break.

55

christine paine:
December 19th, 2013 at 06:12

I agree Oz. Put the arguments aside for now, focus on getting people to sign the petition and getting a much needed safety feature in place.

56

Jim Cripps:
December 19th, 2013 at 11:12

Yawn – the base point is not getting the once approved crossing……..

57

Michael Buzza:
December 20th, 2013 at 08:12

The responses on this thread stopped being about a pedestrian crossing some time ago. Let’s move on.

58

colin seagers:
January 23rd, 2014 at 08:01

Given that Cllr Chris Black has now had ample time to digest the Report by EC Highways Officers on the proposed Lubbards Farm Crossing sent to all the Members of the Local Highways Panel on 8th January; isn’t it about time for him to correct his opening statement to this thread?
As I have stated all along, it was NOT ECC Cllr Bass that cancelled the proposed crossing, it simply fails national transport Guidance and whilst it does so Highways Officers will NOT be able to implement it, irrespective of any number of petitions and petitioners signing them.
Chris, you raise false hopes and waste peoples time with your intransigence, and you owe a public apology to Cllr Rodney Bass for wrongfully accusing him of cancelling it.

59

The Mighty Oz:
January 23rd, 2014 at 09:01

Chris, is that true ?

60

Michael Buzza:
January 24th, 2014 at 12:01

Mr Seagers, I thought we had all moved from this. Please stop trying to point score. It’s rather ugly.

61

colin seagers:
January 24th, 2014 at 05:01

The Mighty Oz
Actually it is partly untrue, but only to the extent that the Report was sent by email to all LHP Members a day earlier than I erroneously stated, on the 7th January indeed!!! So even more time given Cllr Black to digest it.

This proposal has been to the panel several times and highways staff clearly know the site because early on they carried out a one-day survey there. Now there actually is a small length of footway there already. But if there was a national legal requirement to have a footway all the way from Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane on that side of the road I am sure that one of the highways officers would have said early on at the one of our meetings “I’m sorry councillors, but the lack of a footway there makes this impossible”. That certainly didn’t happen. Instead the scheme was overwhelmingly supported by the panel and approved by the then portfolio holder.

It is clear that other councils view these things a little differently. For example Cornwall state that a crossing needs “Safe and sufficient pedestrian standing areas and routes to the crossing point.” Which is reasonable. So we need a footway the length of Hullbridge Road on the eastern side (which we have) and a footway from Lubbards Farm to the crossing (which could be achieved fairly easily)

Therefore I do not think it fails national traffic guidance and it should not have been cancelled

63

colin seagers:
January 24th, 2014 at 09:01

Chris Black re #62
So Cllr Black is branding everyone (Cllr Bass, all EC Highways Officers, our LHP Officers and me too presumably, except himself) a liar. Now, to boot, he claims that he has superior technical expertise on highways matters than the EC Highways technical officers who quite properly refused to implement the crossing because in their professional opinion it transgressed national Guidance, despite all the requisite financing and prior authorisations put in place from both Cllr Bass and his predecessor Cllr Louis otherwise permitting them to proceed?
High time to stop digging yourself a deeper hole Cllr Black and apologise.
Michael Buzza re #60
Not point scoring merely ensuring the truth will out, or is it quite all right with you for Cllr Black to get away with his truly ugly blackening of others’ good reputations?

64

Greenbelt:
January 24th, 2014 at 05:01

I raise a point here. If an industrial estate is built as proposed for the land adjacent Fairglen Interchange will pedestrian residents choosing to walk to work, or visit a company, have a footpath provided from the A129 London Road on both sides of the A1245 and a pedestrian crossing connecting both pavements in order to meet National Transport Guidance.
Has this been considered in the Local Development Framework as I have not seen it?

65

Jim Cripps:
January 24th, 2014 at 06:01

It will be flooded anyway , so no point really……..

66

Chris Black:
January 24th, 2014 at 06:01

Colin Seagers at #63 – I’m not trying to blacken anyone’s reputation. I obviously don’t claim “superior technical expertise” but at just about every meeting of the development committee councillors disagree with how planning or highways officers interpret situations. That’s a normal part of council decision-making This is no different.

#66 – There wasn’t any substance on any aspects of the Allocations Document, at the very best it is a
bunch of conceptual ideas. We actually drew attention to the absence of footpath/crossing/bus service/vehicle ingress & egress impact assessments
in our 3000 word (5000 signature) formal objection that was ignored by the “government” Inspector.

Chris Black re #66
It is very different to your analogy. You are falsely accusing County Councillor Rodney Bass of rejecting the Lubbards Farm Crossing, which Highways officers have already confirmed to you was NOT the case, and of which I have also now reminded you on a number of occasions. Recant.

71

Matthew:
January 28th, 2014 at 11:01

From what I have read Chris Black seems to be a rare entity, a councillor who puts his constituents first. ECC is arrogance and incompetence personified!

Choose the layout you want to see

Who We Are

We are Liberal Democrat councillors and campaigners in Rochford District.
We want to improve local decision-making and we see onlineFOCUS as a good way of keep residents informed and involved.
Please click hereto email us .

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments, they are very important to us. However please note:
* We may not necessarily agree with the comments made by our readers
* We ask everyone to treat people with respect when making a comment. No personal abuse please.

Daily Reporting by Chris Black

With support from: Ron Oatham
Bruce Smart
Chris Stanley

Latest Comments

Oz the Positive: Somehow I doubt the words in the grey box at the end will ever be spoken by EuroClagg… ;.I...

admin: Nick’s words: “There’s a tendency to let everything become a process story, and I think that goes...

Linda Kendall: If it wasn’t so cynical it would be funny. Where did they get their transport assessment and...

Legal Statement for the purposes of complying with electoral law:
This website is published and promoted by by Bruce Smart at 12 Ferndale Road, Rayleigh, on behalf of Liberal Democrat Candidates all at 12 Ferndale Road, Rayleigh
The technology and hosting used for this website is provided by 1&1 Internet Limited, The Nova Building, Herschel Street Slough SL1 1XS

500 HOUSES BETWEEN LONDON ROAD AND RAWRETH LANE

There's lots of information on the District Council website about the planning application "North of London Road ".
To see it , just click here.

The Core Strategy

This is the official master document for planning policy in our district! To download it, click here
click here. (2.5mb)

Planning Applications…

If you want information on a particular planning application, you can find it on the District Council website here.

If you want to know what new planning applications have been submitted this week, click here.

Reporting A Problem

If you want to report a problem, you can email Lib Dems councillors by clicking here.
There's also an independent website called FixMyStreet. It's very good for reporting minor street problems like holes in the road, grafitti or failed streetlights. You can find FixMyStreet here.

Food Hygiene Ratings

To find the food hygiene rating for eating places and other businesses in our district , click here.